December 28, 2009

Ms. Napolitano said Monday on NBC’S “Today” that her remark the day before — “the system has worked really very, very smoothly over the course of the past several days” — had been taken out of context. “Our system did not work in this instance,” she said. “No one is happy or satisfied with that. An extensive review is under way.”

ADDED: Let's read the context. Candy Crowley is interviewing Napolitano on CNN's “State of the Union.” The first question is whether the attack was "part of a larger plot" or whether Abdulmutallab was "a lone wolf." Napolitano dumps her basic canned response — that people should trust the government and feel good about flying:

Well, right now, we have no indication that it’s part of anything larger, but obviously the investigation continues. And we have instituted more screening and what we call mitigation measures at airports. So I would advise you during this heavy holiday season just to arrive a bit early, and to know that we are going to be doing different things at different airports. So don’t expect to do the same thing at one airport when you transfer through to another airport.

But the traveling public -- this is my message for you, Candy. The traveling public is very, very safe in this air environment. And while we continue to investigate the source of this incident, I think the traveling public should be confident in what we are doing now.

Crowley forces her back to the original subject of the scope of the plot. She asks "has there been any evidence of the Al Qaida ties that this suspect has been claiming?" — which is slightly inane, since the suspect's claim of al Qaeda ties is evidence. But we know what she means. Napolitano says:

Right now, that is part of the criminal justice investigation that is ongoing...

The criminal justice investigation. That reveals a mindset. Is there a war on terrorism? Or does Napolitano think she's dealing with a crime problem?

... and I think it would be inappropriate to speculate as to whether or not he has such ties.

This is the criminal justice model.

What we are focused on is making sure that the air environment remains safe, that people are confident when they travel.

Now, she's back on her canned statement, the one that Crowley said she'd get to later, after focusing on where this incident fits in the war on terror. Napolitano is keen on repeating herself and slathering us with reassurance. It is here that she drops the quote everyone jumped on:

And one thing I’d like to point out is that the system worked. Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action. Within literally an hour to 90 minutes of the incident occurring, all 128 flights in the air had been notified to take some special measures in light of what had occurred on the Northwest Airlines flight. We instituted new measures on the ground and at screening areas, both here in the United States and in Europe, where this flight originated.

The context is reassurance, and the lambasted quote isn't even reassuring. She was unresponsive to the question asked, other than to try to repackage the incident as a routine criminal matter, and in an effort to repeat herself, she said something laughably stupid.

So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly.

The key word there is "respond." The notion is that it's fine to stand back and see what "crimes" occur and then show up and investigate.

Crowley presses on, saying "Well, it seems as though the reason this plane did not explode is that the explosion failed and then you had some quick passengers who jumped on him when he lit this fire. So let me ask you about how he could have gotten on the plane, with this substance, the PETN. I mean, we get on, you can’t have more than 3.4 ounces of toothpaste and you can’t have more than 3.4 ounces of anything in a little bag, and so I think people are thinking, so how does he get on with an explosive? How does that get past security?" Here's Napolitano again:

Well, we are asking the same questions, looking at what happened in Amsterdam as he transferred flights to a flight that was U.S.-bound. We have already been working with the airport and airline authorities there to see what kind of screening, screening equipment was used. We have no suggestion that he was improperly screened, but we want to go through and see. We’re always ...

No suggestion! Ridiculous! Crowley interrupts:

CROWLEY: I’m sorry, but if he was not improperly screened or properly screened, and yet you want Americans to feel safe on the planes, and so if it was properly screened and he got on anyway with that, it doesn’t feel that safe.

NAPOLITANO: Well, you know, it should.

Wha?????!!!!

This was one individual literally of thousands that fly and thousands of flights every year.

Oh, thanks. I just read that out loud, and my son Chris said: "That's like saying you shouldn't be worried about terrorism at all, because even if you were flying on 9/11, the likelihood of you being on one of the actual flights that were hijacked is very low."

What an awful performance. And check it out in video form:

Why is she slurring her words like that? Does she sound drugged or drunk to you? Or is that some sort of effort to sound like a tough guy? Now, watch it with the sound off. That bland half-smile — that numb mask — those unblinking, wide eyes ... the visual is weirdly incongruent with the audio.

So please explain the context of how "the system worked" worked in context of a man who smuggled PETN aboard an aircraft & was prevented from blowing up 300 people only by (a) a misfiring detonator and (b) a random Dutch film-maker leaping over 4 rows of seats.

I understand this context though: Napolitano is a "show" hire.

Her incompetence is putting American lives at risk. However, I no more expect her to be fired (which she SHOULD be for her failed leadership) than I expect the Dutch film-maker to escape being sued for racial profiling. (He was, after all, way too quick to judge. As they say, "When seconds count, the police are minutes away.")

I'm not a Napolitano fan, but I have watched one clip of a Sunday interview (the one on Drudge), and in that clip she most definitely was talking about AFTER the incident. That is, she said--in that clip--that the system worked AFTER the guy tried to blow up the plane--other airlines were notified, extra precautions were taken, etc.

Was she that specific in the other interviews she gave? Can anyone point me to a clip that shows her making the absurd claim that the system worked start to finish? Thanks.

heck of a job nappie--blame white aryan supremacists for the greatest threat to terrorism; go after joe arpaio in arizona; and cant string together a consistent message in 24 hours--Nappie is Obama--fire the fucking lot of them-too bad she didnt get the memo before she let her elephant mouth overload her hummingbird ass--the woman is an embarassment--the longer she stays the more damagbe she is going to do.

and we stupid hoi polli take her comments "out of context?" Hell--shes out of context as well as out of her league.

Please review for us 0rofessor the texts you exchanged with your son on Novbember 5--sorry dear--you have been in academe too long. You have forgotten h9w to think.

While we're all rushing to slam Janet Napolitano, can we not stop to consider it was the Dutch equivalent of the TSA that let the bomb through? And that perhaps our system did work perfectly while theirs did not?

Republicans have cast votes against the key TSA funding measure that the 2010 appropriations bill for the Department of Homeland Security contained, which included funding for the TSA, including for explosives detection systems and other aviation security measures. In the June 24 vote in the House, leading Republicans including John Boehner, Pete Hoekstra, Mike Pence and Paul Ryan voted against the bill, amid a procedural dispute over the appropriations process, a Democrat points out. A full 108 Republicans voted against the conference version, including Boehner, Hoekstra, Pence, Michelle Bachmann, Marsha Blackburn, Darrell Issa and Joe Wilson.

The conference bill included more than $4 billion for "screening operations," including $1.1 billion in funding for explosives detection systems, with $778 million for buying and installing the systems.

"...Abdulmutallab was on a broad U.S. terrorist watch list but he was not designated for special screening measures or placed on a no-fly list because of a dearth of specific information about his activities, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said Sunday. She said he was properly screened before getting on the aircraft in Amsterdam. Abdulmutallab has claimed to law enforcement officials that he received training and instructions from al-Qaida operatives in Yemen."

They're now tossing her (him?) under the bus, when the real issue is that Hillary Clinton's State Department didn't revoke the entry visa like the British did once this guy made the TIDE list.

This abortion belongs to Hillary Clinton and you'll notice that she's been nowhere to be found.

She's not been quoted once, nor shown her face in public. The MSM is madly protecting her in case Obama tanks. They're forming a hermetic protective shield around Hillary Clingon in case they need a candidate in 2012.

You should know better than that. Without posting the entirety of the bill or amendment, it's pointless to say who voted for what anymore.

Even so, there's a very strong argument that the entirety of the TSA's setup is little more than a placebo for the air-traveling public. If an individual is determined to blow up an airplane, there's not a shit lot that can be done about it.

That being said, the TSA (if Lambert Field in St Louis can be used as a gauge) has about the same professionalism and competence as the local check cashing operations. I have very little confidence in an overwhelmingly overweight staff that has more than their fair share of women with ridiculously fake hair and nails approaching two inches long.

Sec'y Napolitano:"Well it should. This was one individual out of thousands which fly every year, he was stopped before any damage could be done..."

Are you KIDDING ME? This is an outrageous line of logic she employed. The detonator malfunctioned, Schuringa rushed over to put out the fire and chokehold him...and therefore no damage was done, and we should feel SAFE?????

Good grief. The left is ridiculously blaming the right for this, and it seems that the right just wants to get their side back in office so we can return to their wonderful blend of stupidity and incompetence. Nobody at all seems to care about the government doing its job competently-- oh sure, the right says that it does now that the left is in charge, but underneath it all is just hate for Obama and liberals. This childish politicizing is going to destroy America long before the terrorists do.

Napolitano is a perfect reflection of her boss. Never to blame, always scrambling for the right weasel words, desperate to avoid being caught out as a fraud or being forced to take a firm position on anything, etc...That said, I'll give Barry a solid B+ if he's smart enough to can her sorry ass. Even if he only does it out of political self-preservation, he's gotta do it. She's a laughingstock, and a dangerously incompetent woman.

I do not understand this "political correctness" argument - we are getting the government WE CHOSE. The thing preventing effective profiling isn't "political correctness" -- it's voters who reward these incompetent, glittering hacks by continuing to re-elect them.

I know that Althouse is sorry for voting for Obama, but how many other former Obama supporters are there who still will pull the lever for the Democrats in 2010 because they don't want to rock the boat or because they simply cannot vote for anyone but a (D)?

I haven't seen it mentioned elsewhere, but the thought occurred to me after hearing alert passengers were the real "system that worked" that there are some analogies to be drawn re: law enforcement.

Our system of justice is reactive, not proactive. The cops do not protect you in almost all cases. They show up after the real shit has hit the fan. You are responsible for the safety of you and yours.

Julius Ray Hoffman - you seem to paper over the fact that there are legitimate ideological differences. Should Republicans just surrender their values for the sake of getting along with ObamaLibs? NO way.

Too bad your guys have a history of loading up defense/DHS bills with pork programs that force Republicans to vote NO out of good conscience. .

Could you point us to the pork in that conference bill then?

The conference bill included more than $4 billion for "screening operations," including $1.1 billion in funding for explosives detection systems, with $778 million for buying and installing the systems.

JRH, it is political because Obama, Napolitano, Clinton, etc. are politicians. Their views shape the attitudes and policies of the agencies that control transportation and security issues. Obama believes we are too powerful a nation and that we should try to "feel the pain" of the poor little terrorists. Nappy seems to agree. It's no wonder that some of that attitude seeps down to the working men and women in the airports.

Alex, that would be "Who did the Dutch authorities foolishly allow to board the Northwest aircraft?" Although here the collective stupidity of Delta/NW/KLM come in for their share of the responsibility.

Alex- There are legitimate ideological differences, but they are small potatoes. I think there are solutions outside the established way of doing things that could be helpful but neither Democrats or Republicans are going to consider them.

Besides, how does this end? You defeat Obama in 2012 and then some Republican who is just as incompetent takes his place, and the cycle continues and continues? Republicans are just as corrupt and valueless and willing to sacrifice the good of their country for quick political gain as Democrats are. We are doomed, I think, so long as the American electorate limits itself to the two inept and corrupt major parties.

When a major terrorist attacks comes, we are going to turn to a strongman leader very quickly. It'll be a new Princeps with the authority to cut through the bullshit. I think it is more sensible to plan and prepare for (or even encourage) that sort of change rather than to pursue this sort of Democrat vs. Republican pettiness.

Garage, as if additional funding for TSA would've made any difference here. Attempting to look at this objectively, it would appear that there was a breakdown in their ability to simply work off of established lists of potentially dangerous passengers -- this is hardly a funding issue.

Now I must admit they look smart in those new blue shirts (unlike the way they used to look like grocery clerks in their old white shirts) but I can't see how blaming a funding vote several months ago (which was passed by the way) exonerates them from this blunder.

there are approximately 30,000 domestic flights every day of the week, and approximately 5,000 and more international flights.

there is absolutely NO way to control things of this nature without a combination of profiling, body scans and even full on searches, including cavities.

i find it amazing how upset the usual wing nut crazos are over this...versus George W. Bush being briefed on the 9/11 attacks, before they happened, along with the fact that we also had an anthrax attack and of course, the show bomber who used the same explosive agent.

whine and bitch on little babies...you've got about 7 more years of President Obama to haunt your lives.

"how many other former Obama supporters are there who still will pull the lever for the Democrats in 2010 because they don't want to rock the boat or because they simply cannot vote for anyone but a (D)?"

Too many, unfortunately. And before Garage dislodges my jockstrap from his throat to voice a predictably partisan objection, I'll say that the same problem cuts both ways - Republicans too have their share of sycophants.

wv: "repsch" -- A particularly throaty belch one hears a lot of during Oktoberfest celebrations.

Now's a good time to revisit the idea of why this US kabuki security regime is tolerated in the first place.

Returning from a trip to Germany in October, I noticed that at Frankfurt airport, security doesn't require the removal of shoes at the screening/metal detection point. instead, there's a rubber pad one steps on that ostensibly detects something about the shoes while you're going through the metal detector.

I also notice that, while US airports often feature paid advertising placements in the bottoms of the trays for personal belongings used at the screening points, such revenue-enhancers were not present in Frankfurt.

Nice that the US TSA and by extension the "government of the people by the people and FOR the people" is prioritizing passenger convenience over brazen profiteering, isn't it?

well at least this boob understands she undeminded her credibility by saying "the system works". I wonder if obama will wind up shaking up his cabinet like carter did by getting rid of the incompetant and ineffectual? Clearly, whatever he's doing now needs to stop.

heck of a job nappie--blame white aryan supremacists for the greatest threat to terrorism;

That reminds me of the Sum of All Fears in which the terrorists are depicted in the novel are Arab terrorists who detonate a nuke in Denver during the Superbowl whereas the movie version of the same name has the terrorits as...white aryan supremacists...

Ron - Why not provide your expert advice as to how we would stop someone from getting on a domestic or international flight...when we have approximate 27,000 domestic flights per day day and over 5,000 international flights...and don't forget the other 50,000 private planes that take off and land ever day of the week.

C'mon, put your big right wing keyboard to work and let us all know exactly how YOU would deal with the millions of passengers who board flights every day.

Meanwhile, following recent demonstrations, the Iranian government has arrested the opposition leader's top assistants.

And darn it, the President just three-putted on the 14th.

See, that's what I really like in my POTUS: to know world events DO have an affect on his everyday life, because he's so caring and connected and supportive of democracy, especially in totalitarian regimes. He'd have one-putted the 14th if it weren't for the oppressive Iranian regime.

Is your point that it's OK for people on a terrorist watch list to buy tickets on our airlines? Because I don't think the average American agrees with you on that point.

Is your point that you think it's OK for people on a terrorist watch list to visit Disneyland? Should people on the terrorist watch list get visas to come here and kill our citizens?

Because if that's your point then I think you need to just stop. Dude. Just. Stop.

You're making Barack Obama look like a fucking buffoon.

People on the terrorist watch list should be fucking being watched. They should have their State Department visas automatically revoked and their airline tickets canceled the moment they make our watch list.

Nobody has a right to a visa. We should be erring on the side of caution. We are at war with these people for God's sake. What the fuck?

Why do we have to explain basic security measures during a time of war to these moronic fucking Democrats?

Arturius, anybody who actually reads a newspaper or even a book, knows the "majority" in the Senate is made up of 58 Democrats and two Independents, which includes people like Lieberman.

Well I do read newspapers and even books without pictures. That being said, the other independent also include 'people' like Bernie Sanders.

So if I run the math again, GOP has 40 votes whereas the Democrats have 58, along with a self admitted socialist and a former Democrat who nevertheless, still caucuses with them. I'm sorry what point were you trying to make other than confirming the fact that the GOP has no power in Congress?

Arturius, the fact that you appear to think the GOP has "no power" in Congress tells me you're even dumber than first thought. (As if the party with the most votes MUST be able to do literally ANYTHING they want...right?)

The excreble Jeremy--and for starts son, no one wants to suck your dick--asks for solutions

well my little genetically challenged dipwad--the answer, although not perfect, would probably go a long way--so here it is shitbird:

NO raghead man or woman under the age of 40 gets to fly into the united states without a FULL screen of the background, and intrusive body cavity searches when the ragheads get to the air port

Quite easy,actually--and for the record, dipshit, travellers coming into the US do not have the civil rights that you are I have--we can fuck with them to hearts content--now if we really wanted to be assholes, we could give them ham sandwiches--

You know Jeremy--I have never seen a human being as fucked up as you are--but you persist--and no little boy--I dont want to suck your dick--you havent got one.

As a great American soldier once observed, "Never apologize, it's a sign of weakness".

She's toast.

Joe said...

Does anyone really think any system will ever work a hundred percent? It can't.

As I said yesterday, this is the Lefties' perpetual excuse for keeping things the way they want. "It will never work 100%. You're being unrealistic, judgmental, blah blah, blah blah".

95% is better that 0.

Julius Ray Hoffman said...

Good grief. The left is ridiculously blaming the right for this, and it seems that the right just wants to get their side back in office so we can return to their wonderful blend of stupidity and incompetence.

You mean the one that kept stuff like this from happening for seven years? After Richard Reid, this sort of thing didn't happen until I Won came into office.

Jeremy said...

...

whine and bitch on little babies...you've got about 7 more years of President Obama to haunt your lives.

Wanna bet? As I said yesterday, a few more incidents like this coupled with Bambi's, "Don't bother me, I'm on vacation", attitude and the word impeachment is going to come back into our lexicon.

And I'm talking in relation to the feasance brothers - mal-, mis-, and non-.

From Fox News: "President Barack Obama was notified of the incident and discussed it with security officials, the White House said. It said he is monitoring the situation and receiving regular updates."

What? YOU expect a press conference within hours of the event? No need to investigate firstZ? Just run out there and let it fly?

*Like the (Mission Accomplished fiasco on the aircraft carrier or the "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job") drivel...BEFORE understand what was going on or had happened??

President Obama prefers to gather facts and discuss situations with the people who know...BEFORE responding.

Arturius, the fact that you appear to think the GOP has "no power" in Congress tells me you're even dumber than first thought. (As if the party with the most votes MUST be able to do literally ANYTHING they want...right?)

Well considering that Congress is the legislative body, no they cannot do ANYTHING they want. But I would think that a party that overwhelmingly controls the legislative body should be able to get legislation passed fairly easily. If the Democrats can't exercise a Senate supermajority by pulling in the two left leaning Independents then it says a lot more about the ineptness of the party in power than the one out of it.

Oh, and I actually have a 12 year old and a 15 year old and can state unequivocally that they know more about how our system of government works than you do.

The Republicans controlled Congress for 12 of the past 14 years and the White House for 7 of the last eight.

Note the obvious double standard. Republicans control Congress whenever they have a bare majority (or even just a VP tie-breaker). Democrats DON'T control Congress even when they have supermajorities in their caucus. It's so hilariously pathetic it's almost tragic. A tragilarity.

I'm gonna do a breakdown of the next blogginheads with Anne in it, and try to be as insulting, petty and bitchy as Anne's analysis of Napolitano's press appearance is.

Was she drunk or drugged? Please. Now the new sneering conservative line is that all democrats are drunk all the time.

What the fuck is Napolitano supposed to say? Is this Harry Potter, and some magic combination of words will cure The Terrorism?

If you need "reassuring" after this incident, you are a) a goldfish, or born this decade, and have no recollection of previous terrorism and b) a coward and a fool who thinks that terrorism will disappear from the earth at some point.

Was Anne drunk when she wrote this "analysis"? Was she drugged? Was she molesting an anteater while she wrote? That corn straw hair — that red face — those madcap blue eyes...

Hurricane Katrina - Possibly the worst natural disaster in American history, the, the effects of the storm beyond devastation.

And with this natural disaster effecting thousands of Americans...President Bush remained on his vacation. (A man who took 499 days off during his two terms...more vacations than any other President in our nation's history.)

The reason why the Democrats do not pass what they want is that they are basically cowards. They want the “cover” of having a few Republicans voting with them to cover their asses when they pass legislation that so many Americans despise and abhor. They want to be able to say “Republicans voted for it too!” Even if it was only one. They do not have the courage of their convictions and fear the repercussions of the laws they claim to champion. If they had any balls they would just pass all of their agenda and let the chips fall where they may. You know: massive tax increases, abortions fully funded by the federal government, cap and trade, control of all means of production and the criminalization of membership in anything other than the Democratic Party.

ricpic said..."Leaving cow Napolitano out of it, the system will never work until WE go on offense and the fucking muslims are scrambling to respond -- those that are left alive."

Nice work, dumbfuck.

There's nothing like a knuckle-dragging moron to combine misogyny with religious bigotry to make himself look cool among the regular "pack" mentality that exemplifies this site...and that include the "Queen."

This Apparatchik was just an eyes glazed over spouter of Bureucratic cover stories without an original human thought to offer on the real problem under discussion. Think of having 10,000 more just like her controlling all levels of Health Care under the watchful eye of a Marxist State.Then consider donating to Palin and her political allies like it's our last real chance.

I can't believe it, but I'm actually with Jeremy on this. It's easy to toss out sound bite complaints about the administration, but it's a lot harder to try and solve this problem without grinding international air transportation to a halt. And the terrorists understand this, apparently better than some people here.

It's nicve to see someone come to their senses and actually have the guts to agree, versus, the usual drivel.

With that said, your point regarding "grinding international air transportation to a halt" goes much further.

Idiots like this kid can also do the same kind of thing on trains, buses, rental cars, vans, airport terminals, malls, private planes, and on and on...and in a "free society" there really is no way to really stop it.

Unless of course, the wing nuts here are proposing we dramatically restrict or discontinue all freedoms we now enjoy.

Are many here saying they would allow a full body scan, pat down and potential cavity search before getting on a plane or a train or entering a terminal or mall? And where was this outrage with the shoe bomber?

Of course not.

Or hey...where's the terrorist who sent the anthrax?

This is just the usual bitch and whine session the "Queen" puts in motion with her standard right wing (dittohead) crap.

Thank God. I was hoping you would use the link I gave Greg to take the time to watch Napolitano's bizarre performance justifying the system working yesterday. That was exactly my reaction -- shocked incredulity at the connect-the-dot logic.

I don't think she was drunk, not even with power. Perhaps this is closer to the truth.

Or is that some sort of effort to sound like a tough guy?

Or perhaps we're just reading into her acting performance a forced masculinity due to her rumoured sexuality (which she denies).

Either way, it was bizarre. A bit like wanting to look like John Wayne in True Grit, whilst channelling the cool demeanour of her boss Obama.

I was intrigued by Professor Althouse's observation that JN wasn't blinking.

So I watched for that.

The averge person blinks 12 - 15 times a minute. (It will often increase with anxiety.) People who use computers for lengthy periods of time can have deficient blink rates of 4-5 per minute.

There is something not right with JN there.

A medication perhaps? A physical condition. How about Botox? (That might explain the "mask" look.) From the BOTOX site: Reduced blinking from BOTOX® Cosmetic injection of the orbicularis muscle can lead to corneal exposure, persistent epithelial defect and corneal ulceration, especially in patients with VII nerve disorders.

If one doesn't blink they can develop dry eye and even corneal ulcers -- which is not great. We blink and have tears for good reason.

So, while JN wasn't on screen the whole time (and I bailed after abut 4 minutes), I was only up to about 12 - 15 blinks. Meanwhile the interviewer was fluttering away like Madame Butterfly. (And she's the professional.)

Perhaps some do-gooder can point it to to JN, before she gets any blinder.

And yes, referring to these things as criminal justice matters does indicate a certain mindset.

Everyone had decided Huntington was full of it, and now it turns out he was right. The terrorism problem will only continue to grow as long as this Muslim extremism is allowed to grow.

(1) Don't allow any more Saudi money into our Middle Eastern Studies departments in the US.(2) Develop our own energy resources. (Nuclear, oil drilling, coal.)(3) Make a concerted effort to export Western culture. (I know, ew, icky imperialism. So what? It's good stuff. We should have more confidence in spreading it.) No, I don't mean Western pop culture.(4) Stop embracing relativism in academia and stop indoctrinating students into it. It's a lie, and it makes us intellectually weak.(5) Don't tolerate terrorists' crap. If you can get them, do it. Doesn't matter if they're at funerals or hiding in mosques. Be the strong horse.(6) Forget the UN. There's nothing "progressive" about it. We don't owe dictators a mic. We should care about relationships with other liberal democracies. You want a seat at that table, you earn it.

Napolitano wouldn't speculate whether he was screened properly, or how much damage he could have done had the PETN detonated. But she did say there was so far no evidence of a wider terrorist plot.

ABC News now reports:"Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, charged with the attempted Christmas Day bombing of Northwest Airlines flight 253, told FBI agents there were more just like him in Yemen who would strike soon."

Maybe the FBI thinks he's lying; maybe he is lying (after all, his pants were on fire).

But 80 grams of high explosive doesn't just grow on trees, and so somebody probably gave it to him, and whoever that was probably could get more and give it to someone else.

When the news is bad and lives are on the line, I'd prefer my government to give it to me straight - not a bunch of false assurances that any thinking person can see is complete BS.

@ken in sc- The point would be to have some way of cutting through the crap that has accumulated in the system. A decision would be made and it would not be subject to the whims and whining of the current political system. Take the toughest, strongest qualified person you can think of and give him all the authority and responsibility for securing the country. He will be tasked with building and maintaining the metaphorical "walls" to keep the bad guys out. Congress is not involved.

Cheney basically did a lite-version this job when W was in office. We need someone like that again.

Hurricane Katrina - Possibly the worst natural disaster in American history, the, the effects of the storm beyond devastation.

And with this natural disaster effecting thousands of Americans...President Bush remained on his vacation. (A man who took 499 days off during his two terms...more vacations than any other President in our nation's history.)

The worst natural disaster in this country's history was the Galveston flood and hurricane of 1900. Bush's response - and the actual problems experienced by the residents - were subject to a campaign of lies and disinformation by the media and people like you. History shows Nagin and Blanco far more to blame.

As for days off, it averages to about 60 days a year. Most people at that executive level get at least 30 and usually more. No one, moreover, ever said Dubya was disengaged or unconcerned, as even the Lefties are starting to say about The Zero.

The TSA and all clownish efforts to thwart terrorism are the result of bipartisan stupidity. It would be nice to blame it on Republicans or Democrats, but the fact is both of these parties have completely swallowed the PC pill that prevents profiling, pretends that Islam is a religion of peace and refuses to "call out" members of that "faith" for not showing the slightest interest in self-policing. Both parties are filled with pious nitwits who think it is equally probable that a Yemeni youth and an Atlanta housewife are equal threats to our safe travel, that hire people who couldn't get jobs as security guards to pat down old people and bark out orders to the throngs in the useless "security" lines. These people, both parties, will sanction more stupid "security" "measures" in the days ahead and will congratulate themselves for having navigated these treacherous waters without once uttering the words "Muslim" or "Islam" in anything but the most respectful manner. WE are out of our minds.

(1) Don't allow any more Saudi money into our Middle Eastern Studies departments in the US.(Right. And don't buy any more of their oil or sell them any more planes, and don't accept any form of investment from them...duh)

(3) Make a concerted effort to export Western culture. (I know, ew, icky imperialism. So what? It's good stuff. We should have more confidence in spreading it.) No, I don't mean Western pop culture. - That's exactly what President Obama is trying to do. What's your point?

(4) Stop embracing relativism in academia and stop indoctrinating students into it. It's a lie, and it makes us intellectually weak. - Ohhh, heavy stuff...duh.

(5) Don't tolerate terrorists' crap. If you can get them, do it. Doesn't matter if they're at funerals or hiding in mosques. Be the strong horse. - You mean just invade and bomb? Never tolerate other people's religions or beliefs? Duh.

(6) Forget the UN. There's nothing "progressive" about it. We don't owe dictators a mic. We should care about relationships with other liberal democracies. You want a seat at that table, you earn it. - The U.N. handles all kinds of international problems we would otherwise be involved in. Whining about the U.N. is ludicrous...unless of course, you can provide the names of Republican Presidents who favored abandoning them as worthy allies.

You need to read more and blather less. None of this makes any sense in the "real" world.

No Saudi money to Universities is important because that's where our people are trained to handle these problems. We cannot train them properly if they are being indoctrinated. (I've studied in such departments, so I know of what I write.)

Yes, drill.

Provide evidence that Obama is doing this.

If you think rejecting relativism is obvious, you should spread your opinion around. It is the norm now and lessening not at all.

I didn't write anything that would indicate intolerance to beliefs. I wrote that we should kill known terrorists wherever they are and whatever they're doing.

Name for me a problem that the UN has solved. Then, whatever you name, weigh that against everything they've screwed up or failed to address. Giving dictators voice at the UN gives them legitimacy. Don't do it. I don't care whether or not a Republican President has ever wanted to leave the UN.

This interview reveals so many disturbing attitudes:"Everybody played an important role here. The passengers and crew of the flight took appropriate action." Everybody gets a gold star for participation!"Before you actually ban someone from air travel." After all, air travel is a human right, isn't it?"The Tide list has over 500,000 names on it"! How the hell am I supposed to keep track of who's good and who's bad?

You think we should disallow Saudi money into universities? Really? Have you run this by the university administrations? Do you have someone in mind to take up the slack?

And what about those billions in air plane sales? Are you willing to tell our Boeing and others to pack it in? Do you also have someone to take up that slack?

The drilling routine if old news. Run it by those who live in environmentally sound areas and do not want to live with oil soaked beaches and chemically tainted waterways.

And of course you think we should kill all terrorists. Now there's a new and improved thought. When has Obama or any President for that matter NOT done what they could to do exactly that? (Read a newspaper and you'll see that Obama has ordered plenty of drone and other attacks, killing all kinds of nasty people over the past few months.)

The U.N. has done far more than you or any of the wing nuts will ever acknowledge or admit to, and maybe if you were to do some research, you'd understand just how important they have been for many, many years...especially in areas of the world that we do not want to dirty our hands by actually being there.

pious nitwits who think it is equally probable that a Yemeni youth and an Atlanta housewife are equal threats to our safe travel

hey if El Al security grilled Bubbe Berman for twenty minutes looking for holes in her story, I'm not going to argue. No El Al plane has ever been hijacked or bombed, despite being the presumed target of every Muslim terrorist in the world -- their policies work. People who think that Muslims are the only threat to flight safety are living in a fool's paradise.

"So the whole process of making sure that we respond properly, correctly and effectively went very smoothly."

Althouse - The key word there is "respond." The notion is that it's fine to stand back and see what "crimes" occur and then show up and investigate.

Alert of Ann to pick up the core problem of Napolitano and other "career lawyers" posing as leaders. To them, everything is either solvable by a new law or applying "our magnificent courts and hero law enforcement personnel" to any incident where they think some law was broken.

Even poor Rudy Giuliani was locked into the career prosecutor mentality after 9/11. The 1st statements out of his mouth other than his "hero cop, hero firefighter, hero rescuers standing by to save thousands of trapped people" narrative was that the WTC was a giant crime scene and cops were controlling all access to best preserve evidence to aid in prosecution of the criminals...

It sounded bizarre at the time, but that is how such people think.

It reflects America going away from "swift and sure justice" - which served us well up to the mid-60s, to a Talmudic system of endless debate and due process and new criminal rights as obligatory...and all law considered a flexible instrument that could be creatively interpreted to mean many things...in a Sanhedrin or rabbinical way...by judges and lawyers.

=====================Ricardo said... I can't believe it, but I'm actually with Jeremy on this. It's easy to toss out sound bite complaints about the administration, but it's a lot harder to try and solve this problem without grinding international air transportation to a halt. And the terrorists understand this, apparently better than some people here..

Actually, it was Bush that 1st said you cannot defend 30,000 planes completely nor 100,000 fixed targets in the US that the Islamoids might be interested in striking if they could. You have to take the fight to them, without much regard for the ACLU-Talmudic spin on "precious enemy rights".

Ricardo and Jeremy are right about the rightwingers screaming for a perfect defensive system and like Mike Habenstab last night saying he would accept wearing a hospital-like gown and sandals and no items carried on whatsover and drive to the airport 24 hours before flight "if all that was needed to become perfectly safe flying". No doubt the same nuts on the right would be demanding anal and vaginal cavity searches then each person be issued "a hot, wonderful gun with lots of ammo so we can deal with any evildoer."

Actually, we have dealt with bad actors by banning nations from flying commercially due to terror concerns. Libya made such a blacklist.And above that, we have no limit on what we can do with a nation in breach of Geneva if the killing in war goes far beyond boundaries we wish to keep the other side flouts..at a certain point, adhering to rules the other side disregards costs us too much damage and casualties.The classic example is avoiding loss of "precious enemy civilian lives" as an objective, and what we would have done if the Soviets had nuked several American cities?

The obvious answer was that we were prepared to obliterate larger numbers of Soviet civilians in response, everybody absolutely believed Geneva was scrapped the moment the first nuke detonated over a city - and that created nuclear deterrence, the "Balance of Terror".

With Islamoids, we could create the same balance of terror - they blow up one of our planes loaded with civilians..we send fighter jets to blow 5 planes loaded with Muslims out of the sky..and warn the next time it will be 10.End of problem.

The other penalty would be a ban on Muslims flying for several years, except on "Muslim-only" planes, with passengers paying for the costs of fighter jets escorting them anywhere outside the Ummah.

Both of course would create a lot of seeth & rage, but there was plenty of that when we were roasting Jap and German cities. The key is doing war that strips the enemy of enough abilities and "legal rights" that they can seeth and rage away, but are utterly powerless to do anything about the casualties they are taking unless they surrender, and then modify their behavior and get new leaders...

It's not really unthinkable...and the Lefty disclaimer that "We Are Better Than That!!" was "inoperative" the moment a nuke went off. Or nerve gas or anthrax was used on us.

Jeremy: I would say your praise of the United Nations is a comment too far. Are you perhaps conflating them with the Peace Corps, or do you have some examples of the places where the U has feared to tread and the UN has not? Where is it that we don't want to dirty our hands by not actually being there whilst the UN is busily helping out? Name where.

As far as the energy issue goes...nukes. Nukes now, nukes everywhere. Panasonic (I think, might have been Philips) just announced a soon-to-be commercially available battery capable of running an average household for a week. Cheap electricity from nukes combined with actual, not sci-fi, batteries of this type is a game-changer on a global scale.

Scott - Are you implying that things are all "absolute?"

That decisions and actions by any administration or individual should disregard individual situations, or criteria?

Like I said: Duh.

Nothing of the sort and you would have to have a hip-pocket agenda or battery on your shoulder to think otherwise. You know exactly the context in which he original made the point. You dodged it and are now being glib.

Oh...I forgot I was going to stop arguing with you once you descend to glibness.

It's not really unthinkable...and the Lefty disclaimer that "We Are Better Than That!!" was "inoperative" the moment a nuke went off. Or nerve gas or anthrax was used on us.

Well said. Most people tend to forget the razor-thin veneer that is civilized society. It doesn't take much to rip that veneer off and expose how utterly base those same people will become in a crisis.

For my own part, the further you slide to either side of the ideological spectrum, the greater your misunderstand of the reality of humanity becomes.

Scott - "You know exactly the context in which he original made the point. You dodged it and are now being glib."

Bullshit.

Unless you have another definition of "relativism."

Freeman was trying to throw out a series of ridiculous "absolutes" as the crux of her suggestions in handling the problems of the world.

No money from the Saudis? (Does that include investments or purchases of oil?) Kill all terrorists? (Oh...okay.) Disband the U.N. (Might want to run that one by impoverished nations of the world first.)

edutcher - I said: "Possibly the worst natural disaster in American history..."

Your reading comprehension is lacking.

No, you wanted everyone to think it was. Katrina wasn't even close, except in the minds of the Lefties because it was politically convenient for them, just like waterboarding is torture.

As for your defense of how Bush handled matters, blaming it on the "media" (what a shock)...everybody knows how things were handled...or, hey, just ask "Brownie."

Better yet, ask Nagin and Blanco, both of whom screwed up. There were busses available to evacuate eveyone in NOLA, but Nagin wanted to play race monger. blanco dithered about activating the National Guard. The media claimed there were bodies stacked like cordwood inside the Superdome and portrayed Bush's decision to fly on, rather than cause more problems than it would solve, as indifference.

Everybody heard the media lies, but anyone who knows has a very different picture.

Hadn't thought of that. I think the system should permit non-fat people to ride with the fats but not vice versa. If you are feeling unlucky you can suck it up and go with the fatties. Otherwise take your chances with the thin ones. Lots to think about.

He was referring (hence his mention of academia) to the normative relativistic bullshit that's been part and parcel with higher education in this country since the navel-gazing boomers took over.

It was the rule, not the exception, when I was in college and is still firmly entrenched now as seen through the eyes of my son, a freshman at an Illinois state school, who chafes against it even as he leans a bit more left than I do.

Normative relativism only works when you can count on the maturity and moderation of all other actors. This is NEVER the case in the real world and, thus, as you put it, bullshit.

Ah, Zimbabwe!! Jeremy, you amaze! Zimbabwe, home to our freedom loving Bobby Mugabe, hero of the left? The very same Zimbabwe where the UN torture investigator was denied entry? You are some lefty dude, Jeremy, some typical whacked out lefty dude. Zimbabwe. You had me going for a minute.

You need to go back to the earlier reports. The report was that the US TSA followed behind the Dutch and cleared the flight to proceed after checking the passenger list and overlooking the check-in. The Dutch let him on but the TSA did not object and did clear the flight to proceed from Schipohl (sp).

If you think Katrina was a walk in the par and that Bush did a great job...join the wing nut crowd.

Sen. Barack Obama said in the aftermath of Katrina on September 6, 2005:

And so I hope that out of this crisis we all begin to reflect - Democrat and Republican - on not only our individual responsibilities to ourselves and our families, but to our mutual responsibilities to our fellow Americans.Link

Shorter Obama:And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what you can do for yourself—ask what your country can do for you.

Wow, how anything critical of this administration brings out the trolls, eh?

Never mind the few instances where someone's actually trying to engage a discussion (Garage is someone I can respect for this oftentimes); I'm talking the spittle-spewing halitosis-imposing ad-hominem homunculii trolling the thread with the most asinine of witless comments, and nary a shred of substantive argument to support their gossamer claims of administrative competence.

And please, already: for the crowd that crowed of W's incompetence for the past 8 years to now say that Obama's actions are o.k. because "Bush did it too" (or its equivalent) is a concession of the argument, not a justification.

Some people are so blind from partisan invective that they can't be bothered to notice the lows to which they reduce themselves. Their loss (and problem), not mine.

Let's see: First, the would be bomber started his flight from, and was therefore security checked at, Lagos, Nigeria, a country with a large, militant Muslim population. Second, his father, a prominent banker with considerable credibility informed the US Embassy in London months ago that son was a radical Muslim, presumably because he thought son was dangerous. Finally, the would be bomber was on a terrorist "watch list."

Regardless, he was issued a US visa and got on an American plane bound for Detroit with explosives on his person.

So, which is it that Jeremy and the lefties are arguing here, that:

a. The system worked; b. The system worked as well as it could; c. The system is fallible, no matter who is in charge; or d. The system didn't work, but more importantly, Bush/Republicans/conservatives [is] are jerks?

I sincerely hope Obama adopts one of those explanations if he gets around to commenting. LOL

Freeman gets the points for actually showing interest in offering substantive criticism, rather just than political point-scoring. If she doesn't mind, though, I'd like to break it down. (Some suggestions are better than others, and some are specific enough to be meaningful).

"(1) Don't allow any more Saudi money into our Middle Eastern Studies departments in the US."

Not feeling the romance with oil, and coal is pretty well-developed. But nuclear becomes much less of an issue now that we're taking away the restrictions on reprocessing spent (waste) fissile material.

"(3) Make a concerted effort to export Western culture. (I know, ew, icky imperialism. So what? It's good stuff. We should have more confidence in spreading it.) No, I don't mean Western pop culture."

Despite what Gandhi said, Western civilization is not only great in theory, but in practice. But like it or not, the most visible part of it happens to be the cultural dregs of American Idol, McDonalds and other garbage. Trade has made American consumerism and brand names the most visible export.

The other option is what really did differentiate us historically: Rule of law and respect for individual liberties. But it's difficult to export that at gunpoint, or while preferring to subject any scary Muslims to a war over a trial. I'm not opposed to a good war should it be in our geostrategic interests. But the Althousians and neocons over-estimate the potential for war to change culture. I've become convinced that demonstrating a superior legal and civil culture goes further.

"(4) Stop embracing relativism in academia and stop indoctrinating students into it. It's a lie, and it makes us intellectually weak."

This is ridiculous. First of all, what does American academia have to do with indoctrination abroad? Second, some relativism is a fact of life and part of the Western intellectual tradition (that Freeman seems to want to export). Intellectual absolutism is what shows weakness. Intellectual absolutism is what leads to censorship. Most debates in the Western tradition were party to two (or more) schools of thought. You don't teach Aristotle without teaching Democritus. You don't teach Herodotus without teaching Thucydides.

And I've got a newsflash for you: Islamists won't be decisively "defeated", at least not any time soon. If history is any guide, Muslim liberals will subdue them in the public and political spheres, they will become marginalized and less relevant. That's a best case scenario. Like our own American theocratic conservatives, they will continue to survive, but with much defanged capacity to warp their politics and harass both their co-nationalists and citizens of other nations.

But the point stands. Internal changes, which we can welcome and coax but not control, are what will reform the East. You don't do that by promoting ignorance of their history in America.

"(5) Don't tolerate terrorists' crap. If you can get them, do it. Doesn't matter if they're at funerals or hiding in mosques. Be the strong horse."

Freeman's ideological support for bin Ladenist rhetoric aside, I decipher this as meaning that opportunities for violently striking at terrorists shouldn't be mitigated by other distractions. If she means civilian deaths don't matter, I'd disagree. If she means strikes against individual terrorists are always better than apprehending them, I'm not sure I've got a set opinion on that. I presume a case-by-case perspective is better.

But she'll have to clarify what she means in the first place.

"(6) Forget the UN. There's nothing "progressive" about it. We don't owe dictators a mic. We should care about relationships with other liberal democracies. You want a seat at that table, you earn it."

The U.N. is a political organization and not an ideological one. Treating it as the latter is stupid. If Freeman supports the formation of alternative political organizations through which liberal democracies should pursue agendas that only support that end, I don't have a problem with it.

But to conflate that with the fact that U.N. exists, is allowed to exist, and should exist, is silly. There should be political forums through which all nations can address each other and say what they want, hostile or otherwise. The alternative is that all hostility is channeled through war alone, and no nation will ever have the resources to challenge every potentially belligerent nation through solely military means.

The U.N. is a two-way street. If America refuses to use it on the grounds that dictators use it, it also relinquishes another method at its disposal for constraining and admonishing dictatorships.

So this is a visceral appeal, but ultimately not a very well-thought-out proposal. And reflective of the GOP's reliance on emotion and knee-jerk reactions at the expense of long-term interests and strategy. They are all too easily led astray by an approach that intends to meet and match head-on what they perceive to be the approach of their enemy, rather than refusing to imitate their enemy's strategy and trying a way around it. Keep that theme in mind.

Bottom line- Napolitano more than fucked up. She fucked up here and she fucked up there. Why?... Agenda.

"Naturally, the hapless Janet Napolitano resorted to the now-standard pronouncement — before any meaningful investigation can be done — that there is no indication the terrorist who tried to bring down the flight is part of a larger terrorist plot. On this occasion, there was even less basis for this idiocy than usual: The Nigerian jihadist, Umar Farouk Abdul Mudallad, reportedly told the FBI he was trained by al Qaeda in Yemen. Even if he were ultimately proven to be lying about that, it is at least an indication of a larger plot — as is the similarity between this incident and Richard Reid's al Qaeda-backed attack in 2001.

Two of the four leaders allegedly behind the al Qaeda plot to blow up a Northwest Airlines passenger jet over Detroit were released by the U.S. from the Guantanamo prison in November, 2007, according to American officials and Department of Defense documents.

American officials agreed to send the two terrorists from Guantanamo to Saudi Arabia where they entered into an "art therapy rehabilitation program" and were set free, according to U.S. and Saudi officials.

Guantanamo prisoner #333, Muhamad Attik al-Harbi, and prisoner #372, Said Ali Shari, were sent to Saudi Arabia on Nov. 9, 2007, according to the Defense Department log of detainees who were released from American custody. Al-Harbi has since changed his name to Muhamad al-Awfi.

One outrageous fact is that the bomber is now lawyered up, with high-end DC lawyers telling him to clam up. he should be in a CIA prison right now getting sleep deprivation, cold treatment, the music blasts, and waterboarding to squeeze out useful intel.

If you give her quotes a fair read and don't do the "whoooo" thing then she actually did make sense. This wasn't here at O'Hare or Hartsfield, this was someplace else and, sorry dear legal prof, not in our jurisdiction or on our watch.

Napolitano didn't do it. She is trying to trace out the steps so they won't happen here. Least I have to remind the feeble minded here, you will remember that some of the terrorists started in Portland Maine for the 9-11 stuff and then they walked on in Boston already past security. We have roughly the same thing here. duhhh.

You silly fools want to jump on the first person who utters an ill chosen phrase and play gotcha. who did bush fire after 9-11? who did he fire after the shoe bomber? NO FUCKING ONE because as dumb an sob as he was, he realized that it wasn't one persons fault...it was collective faults.

some here, including the blog mistress, should not have to be reminded of simple things.

Janet is in way over her head. Her only qualifications for the job were: I support Obama and I am a lesbian, unfortunately, neither is truly worth much where the rubber meets the road. Sadly, she is on a par with the other cabinet appointees in the Obama administration, vis a vis, incompetent. Hold on America, this is going to be a long rough ride.

There should be political forums through which all nations can address each other and say what they want, hostile or otherwise. The alternative is that all hostility is channeled through war alone, and no nation will ever have the resources to challenge every potentially belligerent nation through solely military means.

Why does there need to be a "forum?" You act as though nations didn't "address each other or say what they want, hostile or otherwise" prior to the existence of the U.N. That's what state departments, foreign ministries, diplomats and ambassadors are for.

Freeman's right - the only purpose the U.N. serves is to legitimize oppressive governments and tyrannical regimes.

Well, since it is Obama Administration policy to blame everything that goes wrong on George W. Bush, I'll help them out a bit.

One of the worst mistakes W. ever made was allowing the TSA to become a Federal agency. It is a dumping ground for ne'er-do-wells and wannabe cops who will never be hired by a genuine law enforcement agency (and that includes most small town police departments).

I absolutely refuse to fly unless forced to do so for business or a family emergency. If it is within 5-600 miles, I'll drive.

I love how many on this forum wring their hands, apologize for the failure and then throw their hands up with, "Well, it can't work 100% of the time and who are we to judge, anyway? You can't go after the Muslims...that would be bad. On the other hand, we do need to be safe.... Let's sacrifice our rights and our commerce for our security. Body scans and underwear searches all around."

Someone defined a liberal as someone who disagrees with his own position just to be fair.

John Kerry, Michael "there IS no terrorist threat!" Moore and now Obama and his running dog Napolitano all believe international Muslim terrorists attacking us from multiple Muslim nations are simple criminals and that we need only press charges -- after the fact -- against these "alleged" criminals to solve the problem.

KSM is being tried in freakin' NEW YORK CITY, folks, as if he's OJ Simpson on trial for a minor case of domestic violence, because Democrats believe we can fight international Muslim terrorists attacking us from supportive Muslim nations by giving them American rights and hopefully catching them in one piece after they try something, um, distasteful and illiberal.

Bush was right. Unless you want the war lapping at your shores, you take the war to the nations that support this crap. Afghanistan supported the jihad. Saddam's Iraq did. Iran still does. As does Yemen, Saudi, Somalia, northern Nigeria and other Muslim nations and territories. Not officially, of course. But they must, or they're bad Muslims.

You don't have to invade a nation to bring a world of hurt upon their heads.

One way is to drill for our own oil and natural gas, build more nuke power plants and quit buying their stinking oil.

Another is to use Teddy Roosevelt's Big Stick.

But we won't... because we'd rather have pristine uninhabited valleys in Alaska and believe in Al Gore's Global Warming fairy tale than to react to the actual Global Muslim Jihad declared and carried out upon us for real.

Is garage mahal suggesting republicans voting against a conference bill in the U.S. kept the Dutch from properly screening the bomber? And if we're talking about responsibility for the current incident, I don't think the possibility of adding new scanning in the future would have done much to stop the underwear bomber. So maybe I'm missing his point, if there is one other than just normal partisan hackery.

By her definition the system worked on 9-11 also. (after the towers were hit) Everybody did their job that day also. Its a meaningless statement. We want the sytem to work before the guy detonates the bomb, not after.

The audacity of these positions held by Nappy can only be squared if they think they have some sort of Ace up their sleeve. Might it be that they are waiting for the right wing to spill all the accusations they have until it rises to the level of "Bush protected us better after 9/11". At that point, the administration goes on offense to underline that it was Geo. W. Bush who'd released the Gitmo terrorists back in 2007 who'd helped the panty-bomber perpetrate this "crime".